Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Jul 2021 18:41:52 +0800 | From | Ming Lei <> | Subject | Re: New warning in nvme_setup_discard |
| |
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:03:43PM +0200, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: > Hello. > > On pátek 16. července 2021 11:33:05 CEST Ming Lei wrote: > > Can you test the following patch? > > Sure, building it at the moment, and will give it a try. Also please see my > comments and questions below. > > > > > diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c > > index 727955918563..673a634eadd9 100644 > > --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c > > +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c > > @@ -2361,6 +2361,9 @@ static int bfq_request_merge(struct request_queue *q, > > struct request **req, __rq = bfq_find_rq_fmerge(bfqd, bio, q); > > if (__rq && elv_bio_merge_ok(__rq, bio)) { > > *req = __rq; > > + > > + if (blk_discard_mergable(__rq)) > > + return ELEVATOR_DISCARD_MERGE; > > return ELEVATOR_FRONT_MERGE; > > } > > > > diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c > > index a11b3b53717e..f8707ff7e2fc 100644 > > --- a/block/blk-merge.c > > +++ b/block/blk-merge.c > > @@ -705,22 +705,6 @@ static void blk_account_io_merge_request(struct request > > *req) } > > } > > > > -/* > > - * Two cases of handling DISCARD merge: > > - * If max_discard_segments > 1, the driver takes every bio > > - * as a range and send them to controller together. The ranges > > - * needn't to be contiguous. > > - * Otherwise, the bios/requests will be handled as same as > > - * others which should be contiguous. > > - */ > > -static inline bool blk_discard_mergable(struct request *req) > > -{ > > - if (req_op(req) == REQ_OP_DISCARD && > > - queue_max_discard_segments(req->q) > 1) > > - return true; > > - return false; > > -} > > - > > static enum elv_merge blk_try_req_merge(struct request *req, > > struct request *next) > > { > > diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c > > index 52ada14cfe45..a5fe2615ec0f 100644 > > --- a/block/elevator.c > > +++ b/block/elevator.c > > @@ -336,6 +336,9 @@ enum elv_merge elv_merge(struct request_queue *q, struct > > request **req, __rq = elv_rqhash_find(q, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector); > > if (__rq && elv_bio_merge_ok(__rq, bio)) { > > *req = __rq; > > + > > + if (blk_discard_mergable(__rq)) > > + return ELEVATOR_DISCARD_MERGE; > > return ELEVATOR_BACK_MERGE; > > } > > > > diff --git a/block/mq-deadline-main.c b/block/mq-deadline-main.c > > index 6f612e6dc82b..294be0c0db65 100644 > > --- a/block/mq-deadline-main.c > > +++ b/block/mq-deadline-main.c > > I had to adjust this against v5.13 because there's no mq-deadline-main.c, only > mq-deadline.c (due to Bart series, I assume). I hope this is fine as the patch > applies cleanly. > > > @@ -677,6 +677,8 @@ static int dd_request_merge(struct request_queue *q, > > struct request **rq, > > > > if (elv_bio_merge_ok(__rq, bio)) { > > *rq = __rq; > > + if (blk_discard_mergable(__rq)) > > + return ELEVATOR_DISCARD_MERGE; > > return ELEVATOR_FRONT_MERGE; > > } > > } > > diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h > > index 3177181c4326..87f00292fd7a 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h > > +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h > > @@ -1521,6 +1521,22 @@ static inline int > > queue_limit_discard_alignment(struct queue_limits *lim, sector return > > offset << SECTOR_SHIFT; > > } > > > > +/* > > + * Two cases of handling DISCARD merge: > > + * If max_discard_segments > 1, the driver takes every bio > > + * as a range and send them to controller together. The ranges > > + * needn't to be contiguous. > > + * Otherwise, the bios/requests will be handled as same as > > + * others which should be contiguous. > > + */ > > +static inline bool blk_discard_mergable(struct request *req) > > +{ > > + if (req_op(req) == REQ_OP_DISCARD && > > + queue_max_discard_segments(req->q) > 1) > > + return true; > > + return false; > > +} > > + > > static inline int bdev_discard_alignment(struct block_device *bdev) > > { > > struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bdev); > > Do I understand correctly that this will be something like: > > Fixes: 2705dfb209 ("block: fix discard request merge") > > ? > > Because as the bisection progresses, I've bumped into this commit only. > Without it the issue is not reproducible, at least so far.
It could be.
So can you just test v5.14-rc1?
Thanks, Ming
| |